EDIT: The quote reply didn't work, this is in regards to Force10's reply to me.
That's uncalled for and you know it.
DCS 1.5 is the current stable version of DCS that we should judge module integrity on. DCS 2.0 is a developer alpha program. It's in constant flux, and it breaks things left right and center whenever an update is put out. Fixes in 1.5 do not always work in 2.0 and vise verse. If you want to judge the MiG, then do so where it's been released to Beta, 1.5. Are there problems with the module? Of course. Has there been a huge issue with Activations, yes. There are plenty of areas to go after LN for mistakes and delays, but judging the product based on its showing in 2.0, which is unstable at the best of times, is unfair to say the least. It would be like comparing a release in Prepar3d and FSX, similar games, but not the same. You wouldn't go around saying RAZBAM is terrible if it released a Mirage that worked perfectly in FSX, but suffered problem in Prepar3d.
I would also like to point out, the list of completed modules is 4 aircraft long. The A-10C, the Blackshark, the F-86 and the MiG-15Bis. Notice anything similar about these modules? They're all BST and ED modules. ED, which has free access to the code, and hasn't released a module in years, and BST, which has a special close relationship to ED given it's made of former devs and has a special agreement. Every other third party is in beta, hell even BST's 2 helicopters, which have been in development for longer than the other Beta modules are still incomplete, with features missing.
If I'm misinterpreting what you're saying Force, my apologies, but I just wanted to make my position a bit clearer